In article <47562832$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> I fail to see the relevance.
> 
> I was speaking of the ten commandments, as given to Moses. Certainly, 
> something that comes later can dispute or clarify such commandments. But
 
>   I don't know what context God's words to Adam could have that isn't in
 
> Genesis, given there was nobody else in the entire world at the time.
> 
> Jesus says which of the commandments are more important. How does that 
> help Moses interpret them? How does that help anyone before Jesus 
> interpret them?
> 
Didn't your hear, according to one big talk show lady, Jesus came before 
"everything" else, and like got stapled to the cross before then too. 
Oh, and the earth *might* be flat, but she hasn't ever really thought 
about it much. lol

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <47575d93$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
> > cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
> > something that would not be disproven over time.
> 
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
 
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things 
> don't have certain properties.
> 
> > In a purely logical sense, 
> 
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also. 
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic
, 
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a 
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.
> 
> > Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logicall
y 
> > and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or th
at 
> > Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't
 
> > fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as
 I 
> > know you know).
> 
> I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they 
> truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.
> 
> > The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could'v
e 
> > been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
> > communications device.
> 
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
 
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without 
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
 
> > didn't happen?  Not really, no.
> 
> That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that 
> things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example,
 
> it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what 
> genesis says (iirc).
> 
You don't even need to do that. All you have to do is read the bloody 
thing and realize that, much like some of the events in the later 
supposed resurrection nonsense, there are **3** distinctly different 
explanation of how it all started in there, which things got created 
first, second, etc., including when man showed up in the story. When you 
can't even derive *one* consistent time line from the work, it hardly 
matters if **all** of the time lines you might derive from it are 
gibberish.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T 
> WORK.

  So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?

  "Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
phenomenon.

  You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even want to
have a rational conversation about different points of view. You just want
to be right, and you will not concede anything. You have decided that your
arguments are the only valid arguments, you don't want to listen nor
understand what the other is trying to say, except to see how you could
come up with yet another counter-argument. That's not listening.

  It's not always the religious people who make rational conversation
impossible.

> They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep 
> on trying, right?

  That's a perfect example of a straw man in this context. You are trying
to make my arguments (and my point that some of these Bible things can be
approached in a rational basis) look more ridiculous by comparing them to
something extreme.

> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I 
> do?

  Yes. Show your righteous indignation. You must be right, who has the
right to even claim that you might be wrong?

  Listening to other people is very, very hard sometimes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Those of us who fit that "otherwise logical and rational" description get 
> frustrated when the counter to logical and rational points is "because 
> God said so" or "because God made it so" or "Because it's God's will".

  And thus it's completely rational for them to use their irrational
counter-argumentation even against people who are trying to converse
about the topic in a calm, rational basis?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <4756dd54@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> My mom also has a fairly strong faith; the Lutheran church (which I was
 
> brought up in) convinced me that organized religion was largely bunk 
> because I saw the infighting between the pastoral staff (I worked the 
> sound booth, and a lot of time when they were around those of us doing 
> the sound, they were very unguarded in their comments).  When you see 
> clergy acting like "normal people", they lose their mysticism (if it can
 
> be called that).  I also saw a lot more of the financial side than I 
> probably should have - and here in Utah, it's hard to ignore the large 
> section of local (and larger) businesses that are not merely LDS-owned,
 
> but owned by the LDS church.  TIME magazine did a story a few years back
 
> on the church's financial holdings, and the number and types of 
> businesses they own is truly staggering.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yet at the same time, I cannot ignore the things the church has done to
 
> help her through some pretty difficult issues.  So for her, her faith 
> works and has made her happier.  Who am I to argue with the result?
> 
Well, this is one common argument. That the good outweighs the bad of 
it. But, you just described in pretty clear terms above that it *isn't* 
doing them all that much good at all, even if they spend a lot of times 
telling themselves it is, and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how 
everyone agrees with them on the matter. But no, arguing with someone 
too far gone isn't productive at all. One is forced to simply hope that 
something happens to jar them into questioning matters, and hope that it 
is, how ever much you would prefer otherwise, painful enough that they 
truly question why it happened. Some people never escape, such as the 
people in one church recently that where betrayed completely by their 
priest, and didn't just leave, they closed the church. Some of them 
might take a real hard look at their beliefs. The rest will just dive 
head first into some nearby church with the same sort of leader, the 
same double standards, the same comfortable lies, and 10-20 years down 
the road it will happen all over again.

The most serious problem isn't trying to convince a lot of fools to open 
their eyes to the truth, the problem is convincing them that that their 
gullibility ***is*** being used to promote the ideas and beliefs of 
people that think there is no difference between Christians that are not 
from the *right* church and atheists, and whose three biggest arguments 
are: 1. The persecution of their *minority* of true believers by a vast 
cabal of evil, satan worshipping, atheists (heh, its religion, nothing 
about it needs to make any sense, and the entire argument makes as much 
sense as trying to use a solar powered calculator, to determine the 
positions of stars, while spelunking). 2. That science is part of this 
vast conspiracy (except when they can find some vague, meaningless, 
statement they can claim showed that some scientist was a believer) and 
3. Everything that isn't Biblical is atheist (which leads to the 
inevitable insane attempts to prove that everything from Microwave ovens 
to antibiotics where **somehow** hidden in Bible passages).

The danger, and is *always* the case isn't that a huge number of 
gullible, ignorant, fools will rise up and replace sane and rational 
people with nuts, who will drag us into the dark ages. The danger is 
that the huge number of gullible, ignorant, fools won't realize what a 
tiny number of nuts are really doing, until its too late for the sane 
and rational people to stop them. Texas just fired its *only* pro-
science representative from their board responsible for determining what 
science standards should be, and they previously tried to get their pro-
creation text books accepted as the national standard for all schools. 
The only good thing about it being that they **apparently** either don't 
understand, or inexplicably missed, that tiny, barely noticeable trial, 
where *precisely* the same BS they are trying to pull was thrown out as 
unconstitutional. But, now that Texas is at it again, some morons in 
Florida are grunting and snorting too, in hopes that if Texas falls, 
they can get what they want in Florida too.

And, when 48% of the country thinks that evolution "is" invalid and 
creationism makes more sense, trying to point out to the gullible masses 
that the DI doesn't intend to stop with that, but to undermine 
***everything***, just goes right over their heads.

That is the real problem. Not whether or not your mother goes to some 
church that sounds about the same as damn near every LDS or other church 
I have personally had experience with, or heard other atheists (and to 
some extent, almost every Christian I know) describe as one they have 
come from, currently attend and/or know about from other people.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
says...
> Mine wasn't a definition. It was a procedure to arrive at a set of 
> morals. If you follow ethics through the ages you will see that in most
 
> cases ethics are passed down from one generation to another with or 
> without minor changes. There are however discontinuities as a result of
 
> people (prophets) that follow my recipe.
> 
Then, you just described precisely one of the biggest problems with 
religions. You need to have *personal* definitions and *logical* 
constructs to derive real ethics. Ethics that are passed down merely as 
traditions can perpetuate injustice, immorality, etc., by any definition 
that those who question would, in general, come up with. And that is 
precisely what often happened. The people willing to question found 
themselves invariably asking *if* the ethics they where taught made 
sense in the context they where told to apply them, or even if they ever 
did. The truly cynical ones invariably didn't live long, because they 
had a bad habit of pointing out that just arbitrary, non-rational, 
definitions invariably helped those that *taught them* than the people 
that where supposed to follow them.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
says...
> Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist that
 
> you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't 
> got a clue.
> 

Odd. And here I thought I mentioned the whole "herding cats" concept at 
some point. lol But seriously, as long as you are not one of those, "If 
we are nice to the wackos, then eventually we will win!", types, we 
might get along. If you are, then I would remind you that we have been 
trying that for the last 150 years and they **still** think we are the 
spawn of Satan, out to destroy them, and too militant, strident, close 
minded and/or confused and ignorant of the truth as they did 150 years 
ago. At best, the fact that nothing they have claimed to be true, or 
tried as an alternative to secular solutions, has worked as well (or 
some times at all), is the only reason we are winning the battle. And as 
fun as it is to watch fools throw water balloons at the castle wall, 
while disdaining the open gate, which merely requires that they agree to 
play by the rules to get in legitimately, I have to start to wonder how 
effective playing nice still is, when they stop using water balloons and 
start trying, however poorly, to construct ladders and primitive 
catapults. The fact that 90% of the time the ladders fall apart and the 
catapults are aimed in random directions doesn't matter much if they 
manage to accidentally launch enough priests over the wall. Sadly, some 
fools on our side of the wall are just as susceptible to some types of 
woo as the people standing around outside.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <47576014$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Well, sure, because if everyone was logical and scientific in a 
> discussion, there wouldn't be any religion being discussed. Religion is
 
> based on faith, which isn't science or logic. It's not really possible 
> to discuss religion with a religious person and stay logical and 
> scientific about it.
> 
Or, as one fictional character phrased it:

You can't use logic on religious people, if you could, there wouldn't be 
any religious people. -Dr. Gregory House

Read an interview with the actor, and either he was **still** in 
character while doing it, or he really is like this, and given that the 
article writer was a friend of his that *said* that he really is like 
that, I got the love the guys style even more than I did already. Just 
wish I didn't keep forgetting to tape the show. :( 

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause
>> cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is
>> something that would not be disproven over time.
> 
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things
> don't have certain properties.

True, but when it comes to scientific proof of something "supernatural", 
there's always room for doubt (as there's always room for some degree of 
doubt in a scientific proof).  Most who ask for proof of God's existence 
are looking not for scientific proof, but absolute proof.  Perhaps you 
are different from most who engage in this type of discussion.

>> In a purely logical sense,
> 
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also.
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic,
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.

Fair point.

>> Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove
>> (logically and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to
>> God?  Or that Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just
>> because we can't fathom how such an event would take place does not
>> constitute proof (as I know you know).
> 
> I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they
> truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.

Well, you and I are on the same page there - I guess that was more or 
less my point.  Those things that constitute "proof" with regards to the 
commonly referenced book of record (the Bible - and yes, I do realise 
that there are debates about its historical accuracy, and to some 
readings, serious doubts as to it's historical accuracy; I personally 
look on it as a moderately interesting collection of mythological 
stories).

>> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it
>> could've been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used
>> as a communications device.
> 
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense to me that 
such an argument could be put forth in a convincing manner.

>> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
>> didn't happen?  Not really, no.
> 
> That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that
> things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example,
> it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what
> genesis says (iirc).

That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again, 
with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say with 
a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way 
described in Genesis, we can't say 100% for certain that (a) they didn't, 
or that (b) the way it was recorded in Genesis was an accurate reflection 
of the events that did occur.  What I mean by that is that if the story 
was passed down to Moses by God, perhaps Moses wrote it down wrong.  We 
don't know if that's the case or not, and as discussed earlier, that's 
essentially a non-provable point (unless someone with a time machine and 
knowledge of the language of that time can step forward and demonstrate 
what actually transpired).

After all, history is (re)written by the victors.

>>> I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very
>>> quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.
>> 
>> I'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
> was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

Fair point, and in fact many who make such claims are declared to be 
insane.

> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
> always won wars of oppression against them.

I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and 
also happened to have identical life experiences.  So this type of event 
is fairly non-anthropic, since free will is part of the human condition, 
and identical life experiences require a sort of symbiotic relationship 
that doesn't exist between humans.

> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books 
were in fact essentially the same.

> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The 
Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North 
America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of 
Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the 
LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would 
constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?

> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
> after.

That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good 
people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we are 
not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.

> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
> defects.

How many people make up a religion?  I'm sure we could find this 
situation happening in any moderately sized religion.  Personally, I 
believe that everyone believes something different, and that religion (or 
maybe more appropriately, spirituality) is entirely a personal 
experience, so with that definition, anyone with a child without birth 
defects would fit the criteria.

What would constitute "religious parents", for that matter?  Again, I see 
that as an intensely personal thing.  I have a friend up in Oregon (whom 
I may have mentioned before) who has kids, but for her and her husband, 
their brand of "Christianity" is one that falls outside of organised 
religion; they travel to places like El Salvador to help people, because 
in their view, helping those less fortunate is a very Christian thing to 
do.  They use the bible as their guide.  Does the fact that they do not 
participate in an organised church make their brand of religion any less 
valid?  If so, why, and if not, then the fact that their son has no birth 
defects would seem to meet this criteria.

I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is 
arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough that 
you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter was 
made.

> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
> touch.

> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
> believe faith can move mountains.

Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but 
based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but was 
being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".  And many 
individuals have - we only have to look at world leaders to see people 
who have changed the world.  Or people who invent things - you could say 
that someone like Tim Berners-Lee changed the world - figuratively, he 
made the world smaller, and made it possible to communicate with people 
on the other side of a mountain (as I'm doing right now, in fact, as I 
believe part of the Rockies are between the two of us), so in a 
figurative sense, he moved the mountain between us (or rendered it moot).

> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
> disaster or even lightning.

There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already 
happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church 
(for that matter).

>> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would
>> really have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must
>> have meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that
>> happens in the world (and that happened to them).
> 
> I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.

It's a way of justifying "bad things happen to good people".

> I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans.
> (I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some
> leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)

Well, God must've meant for that to happen as part of his greater plan 
for the world. (That's what I mean)

>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening that provides them
>> with the comfort of their beliefs.
> 
> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also
> have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But
> if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink
> those too.

The thing is, historically, God/gods/religion have been used to explain 
the inexplicable.  (This is part of the reason I don't believe in a god, 
because it seems to me to be the "easy way out" for explaining something 
that defies explanation).  The second reason they exist is to provide 
comfort to those who need comforting (like my mom, whom I mentioned 
before, I believe).  For those people, like I said, if it works for them, 
that's great - it doesn't work for me.

>> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
>> without faith, I am nothing.
>> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and
>> so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
>> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)
> 
> The flaw there is that it's using logic.

Yes, but that's what makes it work; it is in the context of a humourous 
work of fiction.

>> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition
>> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's
>> evidence, you don't need faith.
> 
> Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence
> in the world isn't going to help.

Yes, true, but the thing is that in a discussion about whether a 
"miracle" has occurred (which several of your proof points seem to 
imply), you can't really get to a point of any of those defined as p 
would allow you to infer the "q of God's existence" with anything even 
approaching 100% certainty.

It's late and I don't know if what I said there even makes sense now; I 
guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of those were to happen, I 
can see that the counter is "well, that's impossible, so there *must* be 
some other explanation and I'm just not seeing it".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:39:05 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Those of us who fit that "otherwise logical and rational" description
>> get frustrated when the counter to logical and rational points is
>> "because God said so" or "because God made it so" or "Because it's
>> God's will".
> 
>   And thus it's completely rational for them to use their irrational
> counter-argumentation even against people who are trying to converse
> about the topic in a calm, rational basis?

Well, exasperation tends to occur (at least for me) when the "calm, 
rational basis" to the religious person's point of view appears 
irrational to the logical person's point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message